The New York Times wonders if the libertarian moment has arrived. Unfortunately, there’ve been false starts before.

Ronald Reagan’s election seemed the harbinger of a new freedom wave. His rhetoric was great, but actual accomplishments lagged far behind.

So, too, with the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. Alas, the GOP in office behaved little different than many Democrats.

Since then there’s been even less to celebrate—in America, at least. George W. Bush was an avid proponent of “compassionate,” big-government conservatism. Federa outlays rose faster than under his Democratic predecessor. Barack Obama has continued Uncle Sam’s bailout tradition, promoting corporate welfare, pushing through a massive “stimulus” bill for the bank accounts of federal contractors, and seizing control of what remained private in the health care system.

Over the last half century, members of both parties took a welfare state that was of modest size despite the excesses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and put it on a fiscally unsustainable basis as part of the misnamed “Great Society.” Economist Lawrence Kotlikoff figures government’s total unfunded liability at around $220 trillion.

The national government has done no better with international issues. Trillions went for misnamed “foreign aid” that subsidized collectivism and autocracy. Trade liberalization faces determined resistance and often is blocked by countries that would gain great benefits from global commerce.

Even worse has been foreign policy. The joy people felt from the collapse of the Berlin Wall a quarter century ago has been forgotten.

The defense budget has turned into a new form of foreign aid for America’s populous and prosperous allies. The United States has been constantly at war, repeatedly proving that the Pentagon is no better at social engineering than is any other government agency.

Americans across the political spectrum agree that something is wrong, that the status quo is no good. But they disagree on the remedy.

However, the answer shouldn’t be that hard to discern. The definition of insanity, runs the old adage, is to keep doing the same thing while expecting different results.

By that definition, Washington policymakers are insane. The economy is slowing, people are falling behind economically, freedoms are being lost, and security fears are rising? No problem. Roll out the usual failed nostrums.

We know what the effect of these policies will be. All we have to do is look around the world and see what has happened.

It is this reality, not new personalities or generations, that is creating a libertarian moment. The 20th century killed off communism and fascism as serious alternatives. The chief competitor to this systems was not laissez-faire capitalism, as some suggested, but highly regulated and monumentally expensive welfare states. They were freer and more prosperous than their geopolitical antagonists—even a little capitalism goes a long way—but the erosion of liberty and prosperity has been constant.

Perhaps more debilitating was the corrosive effect on the foundational principles of a free society, such as independence, self-reliance, responsibility, accountability, and more. This assault in America continues with, for instance, the federal government turning health care into another massive entitlement, highlighted by pervasive regulation and income redistribution.

The obvious—and only—alternative to more government, which has failed so badly, is less government. Lower tax rates and rationalize complex tax systems. Cut the wasteful looting and pillaging that is a hallmark of today’s transfer society. Repeal unnecessary and relax unnecessarily stringent regulations, while making legitimate rules more market-friendly. Model liberty, prosperity, tolerance, and peace for others, allowing individual Americans going abroad to be America’s best ambassadors.

Has the libertarian moment arrived? The tyranny of the status quo, as Milton Friedman termed it, remains omnipresent and powerful. As a result, I point out in the Freeman, “the libertarian moment will not ‘arrive.’ It will have to be brought forward by those committed to a better and freer America.”

For 126 years the United States of America had very limited taxes. In this time from 1787 until 1913 the government-funded itself by indirect taxes – mainly tariff, corporation, and other excise taxes. An indirect tax is one that is not levied on each person and can be avoided (or passed on) if you want to. An example of this is the tobacco tax – you do not have to pay the tobacco tax simply for being a resident. You only pay the tax if you voluntarily decide to participate in that activity that the tax is attached to – you can either not smoke or you can grow your own tobacco – you simply avoided that product or service to not pay an indirect tax.

Today most Americans have no idea about taxation. Even worse is that they have no idea what the difference is between direct and indirect taxation. Most Americans simply send off any paperwork they may have to a tax professional and that person does it. What is interesting is that you could send your paperwork off to five different individuals and you will come up with a different tax burden computation from each. Each tax preparer will interpret the code and take calculated risks off those interpretations. The sad part is that most of the time they are all right – the tax code is so insanely convoluted that there is an infinite amount of possibilities that one can arrive at for their tax burden – after all Title 26 was reported to be 73,954 pages (~4.5 million words) for 2013. Compare this with the 400 pages (240,045 words) the tax code was in 1913, the Bible with 1,291 pages (774,746 words), and War and Peace at 1,444 pages (866,562 words).

We are routinely told by our government that taxation is a voluntary system but yet every year the IRS sends out legions of enforcers and piles of fines to people they have somehow deemed to be delinquent. All this despite numerous politicians stating that it is voluntary; even IRS Commissioner Steve Miller said that it was voluntary. How is a system voluntary if we are threatened with fines, court proceedings, garnishment, repossession, liens, and jail time?

Something doesn’t smell right, does it?

But it doesn’t stop there. Recently we have learned that the Internal Revenue System has targeted political opposition to the President – and worse yet during and election year. This is an obvious abuse of power but despite this fact little to nothing has done to condemn or stop such acts. I think what bothers me about the entire connection with Obama is that a lot of people will claim that he had no knowledge of the targeting nor did he command the targeting. This may be true but I still think it begs a few pertinent questions.

The IRS Commissioner in charge during the targeting was Douglas Shulman. He was to serve for 5 years starting in 2008. So yes, Shulman was put into position during President W. Bush’s term. However, he served less than 9 months under Bush. Furthermore, the Senate that confirmed him was controlled by the Democrats and according to financial records Shulman donated to the Democrats. And this fact is evidenced even further by the White House visitor log showing that the IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House 118 times between 2010 and 2011. By law the President can remove the IRS Commissioner if he has a cause and what a better cause than the IRS targeting certain political groups.

As the proverb goes “You may know a man by the company he keeps.” President Obama had every right to remove Shulman but didn’t. I personally I find it hard to believe that someone visited the White House 118 times in 2 years (that is about once a week) and never squeaked a word about any targeting of the hosts (President’s) opponents. C’mon.

Have you ever thought about how America was before the Tax Code? Arguably America had her biggest growth before 1913 when there were very few taxes and little to no taxes on any income. If you go over to my article entitled The Sixteenth Amendment Did Not Allow the Government to Tax You! then you will see that only 0.37% of the American population even filed for taxes. It wasn’t even until 1916 that over 1% filed and 1943 over 30% filed – mind you that the Sixteenth Amendment was implemented in 1913. Courts have repeatedly ruled that no new powers of taxation were created with the Sixteenth Amendment but that sure as hell doesn’t stop the politicians and the government from saying that is exactly what allows them to tax your paycheck.

The U.S. “tax army” is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
Income taxes are so complex that there are up to 1.2 million paid tax preparers in the country — six times more than the number of troops in Iraq. The tax army includes legions of accountants, lawyers, and computer experts — some of the best minds in the country. Unfortunately, their brainpower is adding little to the nation’s standard of living.

A tax form for every special interest.
As the income tax grows more complex, the number of IRS tax forms has jumped from 402 in 1990 to 526 by 2002. Congress hands the accountants business on a silver platter when they create special interest tax forms such as “8845-Indian Employment Credit” and “8834-Qualified Electric Vehicle Credit.” When Congress penalizes an activity, we get tax forms such as “6197-Gas Guzzler Tax.” It’s time to end the micromanaging and adopt a simple flat-rate tax. Until then, Congress needs to supplement “6478-Credit for Alcohol Used as Fuel” with form “XXX-Credit for Alcohol Used for Drinking.”

Double-tax on dividends: 60 years and still not fixed.
Sixty years ago, a Treasury report noted that “double taxation of corporate profits is the principal problem raised in connection with the corporation income tax.” In the 1930s, a Treasury report argued that the tax disincentive to pay dividends caused corporate management problems. Recent scandals proved them right. Congress should bite the bullet and reform dividend taxes now — before the next round of corporate scandals begins.

Congress promotes discrimination through the tax code.
The front of the Supreme Court building boldly declares “equal justice under law,” yet the income tax has hundreds of discriminatory provisions. For example, homeowners are treated more favorably than renters since they can deduct mortgage interest and other itemized deductions. Consider that a higher-income homeowner can effectively deduct car loan interest by shifting around his finances but a lower-income apartment dweller cannot. Americans would not stand for such discrimination on other taxes — imagine if each shopper at Wal-Mart was assigned a different sales tax rate!

Congress on tax complexity: Who us?
Congress frequently holds hearings on tax simplification so members can denounce the tax code’s complexity. Each time, congressional experts and outside think tanks provide useful simplification ideas. Then when the TV cameras are turned off, Congress promptly ignores them and votes for more special interest breaks. The result: The number of pages in the tax code and regulations doubled from 26,300 in 1984 to 54,846 by 2003, according to tax publisher CCH.

AMT designed to catch 155 taxpayers will soon catch 37 million.
The alternative minimum tax is an unneeded parallel tax system alongside the ordinary income tax. It began life in 1969 after Congress was shocked (shocked!) to learn that 155 wealthy individuals were not paying tax because they used too many of the deductions that Congress had provided them. The AMT has been a complex nuisance ever since. But this dumb idea aimed at the rich is set to explode on the middle-class as the number of AMT taxpayers skyrockets from 3 million today to 36 million by 2010.

Voluntarism works for the U.S. military, not the income tax.
For years, officials have hailed the income tax as a voluntary system. The Treasury calls it “our voluntary tax system.” The IRS says that it pursues “enforcement programs to promote voluntary compliance” and establishes “strategies to maximize voluntary tax law compliance by emphasizing customer satisfaction.” But with 32 million IRS penalties assessed each year and about $10,000 in income taxes imposed on each taxpaying household, the tax isn’t voluntary and these customers aren’t satisfied.

Congress can’t figure out how to measure “income.”
Although the income tax is 90 years old, Congress still can’t figure out how to measure “income.” Some income such as municipal bond interest is not taxed, but other income such as dividends is taxed twice. The income tax treatment of savings is particularly incoherent and unstable. For example, there have been 25 major changes in the capital gains tax since 1922. The solution is to replace the income tax with a low-rate tax that exempts savings.

Family saving shouldn’t require an advanced math degree.
Shouldn’t saving for education, retirement, and other items be as simple as putting money in the bank? Instead, Congress has manufactured hundreds of special savings rules, such as for 401(k)s, Keoghs, deductible IRAs, nondeductible IRAs, education IRAs, Roth IRAs, traditional pension plans, annuities, SIMPLEs, SEPs, MSAs, and others. The IRS guide to IRAs alone is 105 pages long! President Bush’s initiative to consolidate the savings plans and create a universal IRA would be a good step to bring some sanity to this mess.

Income taxes: A bad idea that got worse.The income tax is not an example of a good idea gone bad. It was bad from the beginning, and it just keeps getting worse. The income tax distorts financial planning and business investment, and it encourages tax avoidance and evasion. Because the income tax is built on an unworkable base of “income,” the law is continually changing. Let’s simplify Americans’ finances and disband the tax army by pursuing fundamental tax reform.

Why would one want to contend with the IRS or the Tax Law when even the IRS doesn’t know what it says (or apparently what it does)? Here is another list of 10 reasons why the IRS is no good from FreedomWorks.

1. The Code is Too Complex.

The code is so big that politicians can’t even agree on how long it is. Title 26, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code totals to about 3,400,000 million words. The non-partisan Tax Foundation reports that the entire tax code with regulations in 2005 was over 9,097,000 words. To put that in perspective, the Bible has 774,746 words. The code has grown in length between 1995 and 2005 by 18.9 percent. The directions for filing a typical form 1040 totals 161 pages. The “EZ” version is 41 pages.

2. The Code is Beyond Comprehension.

No single person knows or understands the entire tax code– not even IRS Employees!

In 2008, the IRS was wrong on questions concerning tax law about 10 percent of the time. Myriads of accountants and lawyers are employed to decipher the cryptic tax code. It should be scrapped and simplified. No small modification to the code can remove the enormous complication.

3. The IRS is Too Big.

The IRS employed 90,647 people in 2008. It had operating costs of $11,207,223,000. If we simplified the code, then many of those IRS employees could go into more productive lines of work, rather than checking up on whether or not the correct amount of money was extracted from hard working Americans. The money spent on the IRS is economic deadweight loss caused by the level of complication of the code. If it were scrapped and replaced, billions of taxpayer dollars could be saved just by reducing the size of the IRS–not to mention all the gains from productively employing former IRS staff members in the private sector.

4. The Code Corrupts the Culture in Washington. DC.

Lobbying is the biggest business in Washington. About $3.2 billion was spent in the 2008 on lobbying. Many, if not the majority, of America’s 15,139 registered lobbyists are working on increasing the level of complication of the tax code by fighting for special loopholes and regulations that will save their company money or put their competitors out of business. Yet lobbying and ethics reform too often focuses on the symptoms, like gift bans, instead of the underlying cause. What would be America’s single most effective move to clean up the swamp of special interests in Washington? Scrapping the code and replacing it with a fair and simple one.

5. The Code Taxes Some Income Two or More Times.

Our code taxes certain types of income twice. For instance, a company pays taxes on dividends that it pays out and then when stock holders earn money from the dividends, they pay taxes on them again. When government taxes particular types of income more than others, it distorts the market economy by punishing certain kinds of behavior with double taxation. Absent government intervening through the tax code with the complicated and unfair system, the market economy would likely perform more efficiently.

6. Congress Uses the Tax Code to Legislate Morality.

Congress, with its recent passage of the SCHIP bill, raised taxes on cigarettes by 61 cents per pack. Our corrupt and easily manipulated tax system allows members of Congress to pass laws that increase the cost of certain behavior. In the case of SCHIP, they targeted smoking. In the case of AIG, they targeted bonuses. Frightening precedents are being set by Congress this session that will likely lead to even more explicit penalties for certain industries. President Obama claims that he will place a cap-and-trade tax on industry that will eliminate construction of any new coal power plants. Under a fairer and less easily manipulated tax system, government couldn’t pick winning and losing industries as we have witnessed recently.

7. High Marginal Tax Rates Penalize Success.

Marginal income taxes are higher for each dollar workers earn. Our most productive members of society face federal taxes of 36 percent or higher. Under our system, the top 10 percent income earners pay 70 percent of federal income taxes. The president plans to increase top marginal rates to at least 39 percent–and that’s not even counting state income tax rates. In virtually every state in the country, high income workers would face top marginal tax rates that would rob them of more than 50 percent of their income. Our current code destroys the incentive of the most productive to work hard.

Shouldn’t we be trying to give incentive to the most productive to continue working rather than taxing so much of their income away that they no longer think it’s worth working hard? How many inventions or cures for diseases have we lost because the most productive stopped working when faced with 50 percent or higher rates on each additional hour of work?

8. Complying with the Code Costs Americans Billions.

Compliance is a multi-billion dollar industry and 59 percent of all individuals filing taxes hire someone else to do it for them totaling to 81 million returns done by accountants last year. If we scrapped the tax code for a simpler one, people could fill out their tax forms easily. The sum total benefit could be billions of dollars. All those accountants and lawyers who make their living off the level of complication of the tax code could go into more productive work that would benefit all Americans.

If we scrapped the code, the committee members would lose their power to manipulate the code in order to pay off their campaign contributors. Our tax system leads to corruption and corporate capture of legislation .

10. Laws Should Rest on Principles of Justice.

The tax code is modified every few years along no reasonable principle. The code is arbitrary and unpredictable, and is morphing from its stated purpose– efficiently raising government revenue– into an instrument that Congress uses to instill fear, punishment, and political control. The code should be scrapped and replaced with a more just system based on principles of fairness and equality before the law rather than on the whim of lobbyists and lawmakers.

America grew best when she didn’t demand through a “voluntary” tax system. People were allowed to manage their finances and plan for their savings. With an ever-changing tax system in place that grows by hundreds of pages per year and is over 73,000 pages what it was originally supposed to be it makes it very difficult to plan anything – especially for businesses. It should be fairly evident by now that the taxes collected aren’t for your benefit – it is for the lobbyist and the political leaders to get ahead of their competition. If you can have the government make your competition squirm while you don’t then you gain an advantage. GE did this in 2010 when it filed a 57,000 page tax return on its $14 billion of profits and paid… no taxes at all.

We should seriously look at shutting down the IRS. While everyone thought he was crazy Ron Paul repeatedly called to end the corrupt IRS.

I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.

As much as I hate to say it, the Second Plank of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto was “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Why do we have such a tax system where we effectively punish those making money? Not to mention a system where people who pay no taxes repeatedly receive money and benefits for free.

Debating with Liberals has got to be the most difficult and stupidest thing I do. I think every time I debate them they end up going off on some tangent and then end up calling me a “kiddo” (among other things). Gee, so much for some intelligent debate!

SERIOUSLY. QUIT CALLING ME A KIDDO. It implies the fact that a kid is not wise or not intelligent enough to debate me like an adult. It pisses me off royally and it just shows that you cannot fully debate me on the issue and instead have to attack me personally. I have had at least 4 people on separate issues call me this and I am really getting tired of it.

I am going to paste a few debates that I’ve had for your enjoyment (some of them are actually ongoing…). All conversations have taken place on Facebook.

Kyle Huwer: Good. What makes Obama a better human being to listen to than Bush?
Meike Capps-Schubert: He can speek?
Meike Capps-Schubert: and contray to Bush and me he can build a full gramaticaly correct sentense in english , but I never was the president of the United States of America
Kyle Huwer: When you say, “he can speak” do you mean “he can speak well/eloquently/passionately”?
Cornelia Maier: More Republican bullshit…yeah, grammar is known to be Bush’s foe!!
Kyle Huwer: So when people desire their children to listen to one person over another, that is “Republican bullshit”?
Redjade InHungary: Now you wish to deny others the ability to have and express their own opinion because you may be offended?
Kyle Huwer: Who said I am offended? I am simply asking you, or anyone, to answer the question. Where did I say anything about denying others the ability to have and express their opinions?
Sigrid Knutson: Kyle, both Bush Sr & Reagan gave the same kind of speech to children when they were president. Bush Jr did not choose to do this. So, the question becomes, “what makes Bush Sr & Reagan okay to listen to, but not Obama?”
Sigrid Knutson: I would assume that many of these Texas parents listened to Bush Srs speech to children when he was president.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Where did I say that we need to listen to Bush HW or Reagan over Obama?
Sigrid Knutson: @Kyle. You didn’t. I just turned your question around, after thinking that I answered your primary question.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: So what was the point of you mentioning that GHWB and Reagan gave a similar speech?
Sigrid Knutson: Kyle, you asked, “What makes Obama a better human being to listen to than Bush?” I asked, “What makes Bush Sr & Reagan okay to listen to, but not Obama?” I’m sorry that you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: In normal conversation, when someone asks a question, you do not answer it with another question. Sorry that you do not understand that a question begs an answer, not a question. Answer mine and I will answer yours!
Sigrid Knutson: kyle kyle kyle. here all this time i thought you were a gal… turns out you are just another dude ♥
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Are you avoiding the question or are you just taking the opportunity for a personal attack?
Sigrid Knutson: neither, kiddo :)
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Then why did you NOT answer my question, still?
Sigrid Knutson: you make me weary, kiddo. you don’t want an answer. you still want a fight.
Kyle Huwer: I do want an answer. If you don’t want to answer my question, then fine. But don’t tell me that I want to fight when all I am doing is asking you to explain yourself so that I do not get anything wrong or put words in your mouth. And again, belittling with the “kiddo” talk. THANKS!

Kyle Huwer: This is stupid. This is absolutely PLAGUED with strawmen logical fallacies. GARBAGE!
Redjade InHungary: i think this is satire – but, ya never know these days!
Kyle Huwer: While it may be satire, does it not portray an idea that the “Conservatives” do not want anything socialized?
Redjade InHungary: huh Kyle?
Kyle Huwer: Satire means – to portray an idea in an “over the top” way as to make fun of it, correct?
Redjade InHungary: Not quite, satire usually means very close to the truth, but also absurd.
Kyle Huwer: I did not know that over the-top-meant “false.” Nevertheless…. So what is this video satirizing that is “close to the truth”?
Redjade InHungary: that Free Market fundamentalists are nuts. and there are many that do believe in privatizing the Fire Dept, it is not an exaggeration – just their portrayal. Maybe you dont like the joke, but since when do you expect humour to be accurate in anything? It’s humour, maybe not good humour, but it is humour.
Kyle Huwer: You know the funny thing… Here in Arizona right up the road from me in Scottsdale they have a privatized fire department and they – the people and the city – have called it a success. Whatdya know?!?! But hey, I’d be willing to hear some of this evidence/proof that free-market people are nuts…
Redjade InHungary: Kyle, I apologize for stepping on the big toe of your economic religion – but for most people in the world, the ‘Free Market’ is not ‘free’ and nor is it really a ‘market’ – it is usually associated with corruption and seen as something that is imposed on you. A democratic State running essential services like a Fire Dept or healthcare is the better option – and it works most of the time quite well.
Kyle Huwer: I just don’t appreciate being satirized and then called a nutjob for believing something. I agree, the free market is not free – it is socialized. America while it may claim to have a “free market” is not free at all. Zero. What we have is a pseudo free-market and you are right, it has a lot of corruption. However, that does not mean at all that we need to regulate it even more. Likewise, America is not a democracy. It is a Republic. However, it too is so molested that it is pretty much a democracy. While some services can be run sufficiently by the government – I will bet my life on it that a purely capitalist system can do it better, cheaper, and more efficiently. Guaranteed. Scottsdale alluded to above is proof…. Read More. If you want to give up % of your money to participate in government program XYZ, then do it, but don’t FORCE me into YOUR system. Is that too unfair to ask?
Redjade InHungary: Kyle – who is forcing you to do ANYTHING?
Kyle Huwer: If we have socialized medicine, can I opt out? Can I opt out of any of these public services (yes, even the fire department) if I want to?
Redjade InHungary: Kyle, if you have a child in your home and it is burning – YES, the big bad evil STATE should break into your home and save your child from dying. And because your home is on fire, other homes will also catch on fire, YES. and the examples go on… Why is that ‘libertarians’ only think the world is about me, me and me?
Kyle Huwer: How about I opt out of the fire department – and I take full responsibility for the loss of my child AND my neighbor’s home burning? My situation, my responsibility! What proof do you have that libertarians think it is about me, me, and me?
Redjade InHungary: sorry had to wash the dishes… ‘What proof’?
well, i used to be a Libertarian a long time ago – then I grew up and realized there is such a thing as society and civilization…. ‘me, me, and me’? Your replies are such an example.
Meike Capps-Schubert: Kyle – who is paying for your fire department ?
Kyle Huwer: @Redjade: So you = me? No, it does not work like that. My replies are nothing of your “proof.” So because I want to opt out of socialized programs, this is now all about “me”? And once again, “and then I grew up” yet another emotionally loaded statement. Are you implying that I am immature?
@Meike: Are you asking for the current payee or who is paying for MY fire department?
Meike Capps-Schubert: the fire department you are talking about in Scottsdale
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: The people that are covered by the fire department, are covered by the fire department. Who else would pay for it?
Meike Capps-Schubert: so the fire fighters work for free or pay for them selfs and their equitment ?
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: They are a business. So, they buy the equipment beforehand and then provide a service to their area. Are you confusing a paid public service with a free, free-market service?
Meike Capps-Schubert: WHO is paying their work they have to get payed from somewhere so who is paying it the companie? do people pay the companie after they put out a fire or how does that work – where does the money come from – what so hard to understand?
Sigrid Knutson: this is a joke… aimed at those against single payer health insurance.
Sigrid Knutson: and Kyle, please don’t comment.
Redjade InHungary: @kyle. I did a short amount of googling about your Capitalist Scottsdale Fire Dept. Here they are: http://www.ruralmetro.com Their web site says they provide Fire protect and other services to communities and the private sector (companies etc) – but NO MENTION of providing to individuals, like you.
This means that Tax Funded local governments make a decision For You and Hire Them and use Your Money that the government Took From You and you have No Choice!… This is certainly not a ‘pure’ socialized’ Fire Dept, but the principle that society needs to make social decisions to protect society is still upheld in the case you point to. Understand, comrade?
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: The people who are covered! There is nothing else to this idea Meike! The only difference between your system is that the private company can lose it’s contract if they act poorly. With the public option, they can do whatever they want and maintain their position.
@Sigrid: You bet I am going to reply…. I want an answer why this is “close to the truth” that Redjade alluded to! Are you trying to suppress my opinion?
@Redjade: Provide services to the COMMUNITY. Right, and who lives in the community? Individual citizens! So if you think that they do not care for individual citizens, then WHO are they caring for in the community – as you mentioned?… Also, Their mission statement includes, “Works within the communities we serve to build trust and promote the well-being of the CITIZENS.” Also, “Rural/Metro Corporation is a leading provider of emergency and non-emergency medical transportation services, fire protection and other safety-related services to municipal, RESIDENTIAL…”
Sigrid Knutson: An outraged citizens group in Scottsdale is looking to replace the private Rural/Metro Fire Department with a municipal fire department. The Committee to Protect Scottsdale and Our Firefighters claims Rural/Metro’s staffing and response are unacceptable and unsafe. http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/209222-1.html
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: No I do not need his name. So what is your point?
First off – I do not know where “here” is nor am I going to go snooping to try to find out where “here” is.
So you think that a public option that bills you is exactly what I am talking about? Where did I say that?
Sigrid Knutson:
Satire: Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: \ˈsa-ˌtī(-ə)r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough — more at sad
Date: 1501… Read More
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
about an hour ago
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: GREAT! If they are doing a horrible job, then get them out!
However, if we look at the date of that article, that was written in 2002! It is 7 years later and they are STILL providing service. Must have not been THAT bad. Right?
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Are you just going to cut and copy or do you have a point?
Sigrid Knutson: When your opponent sets up a straw man, set it on fire and kick the cinders around the stage. Don’t worry about losing the Strawperson-American community vote.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Yes, strawman…. Are you doing homework or do you have a point? Quit cutting and copying and say what you want to say!
Sigrid Knutson: i’m 56. been around a few blocks. so have you. stop thinking everyone is out to get you. they are not.
Sigrid Knutson: ps… i don’t give a shit about fire depts OR strawmen. i care more about you as a person.
Sigrid Knutson: Kyle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTQfERb9HVk
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: If you do not want to debate, then why did you step into the ring? I am asking you to answer a few questions and you refuse to do so here, and on other posts. Why? You continually C&C stuff and never say your position. I am not going to guess your position, so say it and say it with conviction! I still have no idea what you are getting at with the straw man or the 2002 report. I am asking you, or anyone, to explain!… Also, if you know that I’ve “been around the block a few times” then why did you call me a “kiddo” in the other thread? That is offensive and for some reason my opponents always use that as a “nice” way to belittle me. Am I just a kiddo or am I an intelligent adult here, Sigrid?
Sigrid Knutson: you are younger than my sons. you had a hell of a time with your CO & your wife. i am guessing that you — like me — are angry at the world. so, your questions here are mundane to me. what you really need/want is a good fight & a good cry. go to the gym, climb a mountain. i should. i have not answered you — in the way you would like — cos to be honest, it bores me. however, you — as a person — do not.
Meike Capps-Schubert: so this if fun , but still does that mean they only put out the fires of the people who payed for their service- and what makes it better – do they use evian water linke in the video?
Kyle Huwer: @Singrid: What does me and my CO or me and my wife have to do with this debate here? I will answer for you – nothing at all. You do not know me apart from what little tidbits you have read here and there. I am not angry at the world. Are you kidding me? I am the most peaceful person you will ever know. Obviously I will stand up for my beliefs but I am far from wanting a FIGHT. I have asked you many times to answer questions to better give me an understanding and you continually tap-dance around them. If you are going to debate, then DEBATE. Don’t pussy-foot with me. Just to let you know, I am quite active both on a personal sense and on a community/political sense. I have quite a nice life…. If the conversation and/or issue bores you, then quit responding… Simple. And thank you for not belittling me by calling me a kiddo this time around! Means a lot.
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: I didn’t quite get what you are saying but I will try to respond.
I think you are misunderstanding the issue with the FD.
In a public service the FD will use the city resources AND be paid by the city by tax dollars. With the public service there is no contract….
With the private service the FD will also use the city resources AND be paid by tax dollars. With the private service, there is a contract and if they do not do their job or do it well enough, they could lose their contract/job.
So, with the public option it does not matter how good or bad they do. Since there are no standards for termination or contract end date, they can do whatever. With a private service they are being watched. If they do a bad job then they can lose their contract job to someone else. So as a result, it is in their best interest to do it cheaply and provide good service.
This is a summary. But maybe you can understand this. If not, ask.

Formatting was no preserved. I don’t have time to format it all… Meike lives in Germany. Redjade I would assume lives in Hungary. And I have no idea where Singrid lives but I think they live in Germany as well.

So why are we hearing nothing of this? Nobody knows anything about it – the mainstream media surely is not reporting on it. I think the answer is simple… September 8th, 2009, is the day in which Obama has chosen to address the school children. Coinscidence? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. This is the biggest break through in the Obama eligibility controversy and Obama is not about to let it make the headlines. So, what do you do to cover something up like this? Easy – you make something equally as controversial and let that controversy cover the other controversy. In showbiz, I believe we call it smoke-and-mirrors. I will try to keep updated on this subject.

I wonder what is going on in the mind of sixty-five year old Federal District Judge David O. Carter since he proclaimed, on July 13, 2009, in his Santa Ana, California courtroom that the case filed by attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Keyes v. Obama, will move forward in the attempt of the plaintiff to seek a court mandate to force President Barack Obama to disclose his original birth certificate for public scrutiny. I wonder how many censuring calls he has received from his fellow judges around the country, the ones who have curtly dismissed the same, and similar, cases seeking public disclosure of Barack H. Obama’s original birth certificate and his other professional and educational records. Perhaps Obama, himself, has given the judge a call to discuss his provocative decision.

From what I know about the man, Carter, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran, must vividly recall, and occasionally reflect on, the oath he took in 1967 upon being commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. military, which was only to protect, preserve, and defend Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Similarly, he took another oath of office before assuming the duties of a federal judge, on October 22, 1998, after nomination by President Bill Clinton on June 35, 1990, and confirmation by the U.S. Senate on October 21, 2009. The oath, per Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, is worded as shown below:

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as U.S. District Judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

Quite evident to the reader, in the above oath, is the allegiance sworn by any federal district judge to the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Moreover, that individual judge swears to God, and to the people of the United States, a promise to properly administer justice according to all prevailing laws of the United States. If this is so, I wonder why Judge Carter has been the only federal judge, prior to and subsequent to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, to consider the requirement set forth in the U.S. Constitution, for the President to be a natural born citizen, as a law that should be enforced. Judge Carter’s statement, that, as a former U.S. Marine, he realizes the importance of a person being constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, indicates his apparent willingness to see that constitutional law is properly administered and followed in his court. His actions seem to reflect the statement by the great John Adams, that “we are a nation of laws, and not of men.”

Yet, in the face of all the blatant suspicion that Barack Obama has brought to bear on the legitimacy of his election as President, by the million-plus dollars he has spent in legal fees since October 2008 to oppose public disclosure of a 12 dollar certified copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate, and copies of his other professional and educational records, I wonder if Judge Carter is going to end up ultimately thinking politically, instead of legally. I am referring to the state of mind displayed, for example, by San Francisco U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, when she dismissed the federal lawsuit brought by San Francisco Attorney Stanley R. Hilton, on behalf of over 160 9/11 victim’s families, against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other members of the Bush administration, on a basis of sovereign immunity instead of a lack of credible evidence. From what I have discovered factually concerning Dr. Hilton’s lawsuit, he had, and still has, some very damning evidence in his possession showing that Bush, Cheney, and the U.S. military, orchestrated what occurred on 9/11; and the only proper forum for presenting such evidence is in a court of law, where a preponderance of such evidence will vindicate, in a jury trial, the petition of the plaintiff, a forum which was denied Dr. Hilton and his clients.

While it is a truth that a standing U.S. President cannot be sued in federal court over what is deemed to be the ordinary legal, and just, processes for the enforcement of federal law, substantial evidence of criminal acts committed deliberately by the President or his agents, under color of executive authority, is certainly actionable. This would be true even if the impeachment process has not been initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives due to innocent ignorance, or as a result of the placating machinery of corrupt political manipulation. In other words, Machiavellian political maneuvering in Congress should not be permitted to displace, or hamper, proper judicial review, that equity, justice, and, if need be, punishment are properly dispensed.

The exact opposite of this is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany, when, supposedly, honorable judges, who had assumed their duties prior to Adolf Hitler’s assumption of power, allowed themselves to become servants of the evil Nazi Party, in order to keep their jobs. There are quite a few historical examples of lawsuits that were brought by law-abiding German men and women, between 1936 and 1942, against Adolf Hitler and his thugs, which were quickly dismissed on a basis of Hitler’s sovereign, all powerful, immunity. Currently, if it can be proven in a court of law that Barack H. Obama knew, at the time he declared himself a presidential candidate, that he was not born in the United States, that he has deliberately misrepresented himself as a natural born citizen, and that he has spent over a million dollars perpetuating a lie to the American people, a charge of criminal fraud would be the only appropriate action to be brought against the man.

Perhaps Judge Illston has called Judge Carter to express her dismay over his willingness to question Obama’s eligibility to be President; or maybe she is so politically oriented, and biased, toward Republican neo-conservatism that she would be more than happy to see Obama discredited and forced to vacate the Oval Office. In reality, it is difficult to know where the allegiances of most federal judges really lie, for after they are confirmed by the U.S. Senate to their offices for life tenure, they can do essentially whatever they want, for or against the U.S. Constitution, and if they are not impeached, do it with total impunity; for impeachment, in reality, is not a legal process, but one thoroughly political. I recall that a high percentage of the nation’s electorate endorsed the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren during the 1958, but nothing ever came of it in the U.S. House of Representatives; and during the last 214 years, you can count on one hand the number of federal judges and justices who have formally been impeached, and on four fingers the number who have been convicted and removed from office.

From what I know about Judge David O. Carter, he seems to be a stand-up individual and one not likely pressured into handing down a decision determined by the effect of political influence. While neither Republican nor Democrat, I only hope that political party affiliation has had no bearing on the decision of Carter to proceed in his court toward a proper examination of the evidence. Nonetheless, only time will tell what type of federal judge Carter actually is. If suddenly the case, Keyes v. Obama, is dismissed, and disappears under a ruling of sovereign immunity, or on a less than cogent basis of the political forces exerted against Carter, the true colors and allegiance of a federal judge will be clearly revealed.

Norton R. Nowlin took M.A. and B.A. degrees in the social and behavioral sciences from the University of Texas at Tyler, studied law for one full year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, and earned an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin as attended LaJolla, California's National University and Malibu's Pepperdine University to attain graduate credits in business management and economics. Mr. Nowlin also attained a Texas State Teaching Certification, in social studies and psychology, from the University of Texas at Tyler. A paralegal, published essayist and columnist, poet, and free-lance fiction writer, Mr. Nowlin resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, the renown math tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats.

Why are Americans so united? They don’t resemble one another even if you paint them! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations. Some of them are nearly extinct, others are incompatible with one another, and in matters of religious beliefs, not even God can count how many they are.

Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the army, the secret services that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed on the streets nearby to gape about. The Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand.

After the first moments of panic, they raised the flag on the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a minister or the president was passing. On every occasion they started singing their traditional song: “God Bless America!”.

Silent as a rock, I watched the charity concert broadcast on Saturday once, twice, three times, on different TV channels. There were Clint Eastwood, Willie Nelson, Robert de Niro, Julia Roberts, Cassius Clay, Jack Nicholson, Bruce Springsteen, Silvester Stalone, James Wood, and many others whom no film or producers could ever bring together.

The American’s solidarity spirit turned them into a choir. Actually, choir is not the word. What you could hear was the heavy artillery of the American soul. What neither George W. Bush, nor Bill Clinton, nor Colin Powell could say without facing the risk of stumbling over words and sounds, was being heard in a great and unmistakable way in this charity concert. I don’t know how it happened that all this obsessive singing of America didn’t sound croaky, nationalist, or ostentatious! It made you green with envy because you weren’t able to sing for your country without running the risk of being considered chauvinist, ridiculous, or suspected of who-knows-what mean interests. I watched the live broadcast and the rerun of its rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who fought with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that would have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.

How on earth were they able to bow before a fellow human? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put in a collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit which nothing can buy. What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their galloping history? Their economic power? Money?

I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases which risk of sounding like commonplaces. I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion.

Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain